Aromantics And Asexuals Aren't LGBTQ

[Balance]

Since I've been hetero it never occurred to me to join LGBTQ groups, although I was very supportive of gay friends, but then it was suggested on aven under the "queer/different" concept. But I never thought much about it before...if I had maybe I would've heard of Ace concepts before. To me rainbow themes are very 1960s or a reference to a dead person "making contact/sending a message" to living people. I did stumble through a gay pride parade once on my way to check an apt for rent, but that's it. And I'm never sure if LGBTQ people or groups are really accepting of me as an Ace person, although when I signed up for a meetup with that theme, they didn't reject me. One of these days I guess I should go. Who knows, maybe I'm not the only Ace person in this region.

[deletingthisaccount]

As an aromantic asexual, I don't personally consider myself LGBT. However, if other aros/aces want to personally identify with the LGBT community, then they should be able to do so. I don't think aros/aces are inherently part of, or not part of, the group one way or another -- it's an individual choice.

 

From my personal experience as a cisgender aroace, I really can't relate to the straight community nor the LGBT community alike. Honestly, I've been misunderstood and alienated by equally as many allosexual-LGBT people as allo-straight people. That's NOT to say that all allos from either group have misunderstood/alienated me by any means. Comparison-wise though, my personal experience has been about equal from both groups. However, I understand that's not a universal experience for all other aros/aces, so those who feel that they can resonate with the LGBT community should be allowed to identify as such.

 

From a more social and political standpoint, I'm not a fan of inherently lumping all non-cisgender and straight identities together into one community simply for not being in the cisgender straight majority. The "majority vs. everyone-who's-not-in-the-majority" grouping seems to overshadow the uniqueness of all these different identities -- who also may or may not be able to relate to one another otherwise. With other identities outside of sexuality, we tend not to label all minorities into one category, so I personally don't like to label sexuality that way either. However, from the other standpoint, I also see why aromantics/asexuals would want to join LGBT, as a well-recognized group, to gain visibility since the asexual community alone is largely unknown. So if other aro-aces would like to do so, that's their personal choice.

 

I support the decisions of all aro/aces to identify as they please.

[deletingthisaccount]

On 1/10/2020 at 8:58 PM, Nowhere Girl said:

So another thing I always write in discussions about asexuality vis-a-vis celibacy: in my opinion, the asexual movement should be open to people who are celibate for reasons other than asexuality. It shouldn't say that it's a completely different thing which has nothing to do with asexuality because the challenges faced are often pretty much the same. (And I'm aware that there's no such thing as a uniform "set" of hurdles for every asexual - challenges faced by sexually active aces are very different from those faced by sex-averse people like myself.) I always recall something written by @Pramana - I don't remember the exact wording now, but it was about the risk of asexulity being perceived as the only legitimate reason for celibacy. I would definitely fear such a development and because of this I believe that the asexual community should be more open to non-asexual voluntary celibacy, less blindly sex-positive and more agency-positive.

Although in theory that sounds nice, I disagree. Asexuality is already often confused with celibacy. Considering non-asexual celibates as part of the asexual community will only cause more confusion, and thereby further the frustration of asexuality mistakenly being viewed as a choice rather than recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. While the asexual community is very diverse and we all experience unique challenges, our natural lack of sexual attraction/desire unites us all. As follows, while some non-asexual celibates certainly share some struggles with asexual celibates, the reality is that they are not asexual. We could still support and validate non-asexual celibates, and consider them allies. We could have a celibacy community that asexual and non-asexual celibates alike can become a part of. However, asexuals are already struggling for our own legitimacy as is. To achieve that legitimacy, at least for now, our community has to continue distinguishing ourselves from celibacy. The lack of choice in our orientation is the core of asexual identity.

[Lonemathsytoothbrushthief]

Can't really get away from the issue while I'm still dipping in and out of asexuality, aromanticism(I'm still not entirely sure but feel I'm more aromantic spec than asexual), bi and genderfluid. Yes it's only a small sliver of who I am that I'm arospec but I'd still rather it not be treated as something making me an outsider - and I say this whenever this conversation comes up, cause it seems like the people who talk on the topic are usually allosexual/romantic LGBT+ people, cis/non LGBTQIP aces/aros, and otherwise LGBT+ ace/arospec people who don't feel the need for support around being ace/arospec. Also, being part of the LGBT+ acronym means being included in anti discrimination legislation and allocation of resources, e.g. LGBT+ sex ed, shelters etc, so it's a very different thing to say we're not LGBT+ than personally not being LGBT+. Tbh saying asexual and aromantic people should go it alone is like saying brexit is a good thing for the uk, for anyone actually having issues under the status quo as an ace/aro it would mean having issues completely ignored.

[Ella Joy]

Honestly, my opinion on this is: if you’re going to include all these diverse and completely different identities, why exclude ace/aro? Why? 

 

Yeah, ace/aro functions perfectly fine on its own and probably benefits from that. But every identity is different. The trans experience is different from the bi experience is different from the gay experience is different from the lesbian experience even— it’s not like ace and aro are suddenly outliers. Every group should be able to have a community that understands the unique experience that comes with an identity, and then come together to support each other. 

 

And no no one should be forced to participate in any one community. I’m bi, so some people would say I am “real” LGBT and can be in those spaces, but I’m much more comfortable here with the ace community. 

 

Hopefully none of this comes off as aggressive, this issue is just really frustrating to me. This isn’t targeted to any responses here, just a rant. 

[Schñjört]

On 7/14/2019 at 5:20 AM, Zagadka said:

Question, what does it mean to you to be part of the LGBTQ community?

Imo being LGBTQ+ is just being not straight or not cisgender, so I would say I'm part of the LGBTQ+ community.

[Nylocke]

I don't think its for us honestly. Then again I don't align myself with the LGBT and not only am I asexual but I am also genderqueer. I feel that there is a disconnect somewhere considering that these 2 identities are often overlooked considering no one takes asexuals seriously and trans people tend to not be so fond of genderqueer and nonbinary people even though both said identities do technically fall under the trans umbrella. I don't have anything against LGBT people nor do I have a reason to but I just don't feel I belong under that tag line.

[Phantasmal Fingers]

8 hours ago, Nylocke said:

 I don't have anything against LGBT people nor do I have a reason to but I just don't feel I belong under that tag line.

Ditto! 🙂

[Diana DeLuna]

On my own, I never would have considered myself part of LGBTQ+. I'm queer in the older sense of the word: seen by others as strange, otherworldly, unwilling to participate in the things society seems to be in thrall to....so, "queer" in a "something-is-off-about-that-one" kind of way.

I've lived a long life fraught with rejection, loneliness, and all of those judgy labels associated with young single women, and now suddenly old single women. It would take too much space to go into specifics, but I've been hurt, I internalized all of it, and over time it's had a devastating cumulative effect on my sense of self-worth. I erased myself so effectively I couldn't even see myself anymore, let alone expect anyone else to see me for what I am and always have been.

Still, it never would have occurred to me to claim the word queer in the LGBTQ sense because I'm used to staying on the periphery. ("Know your place, you frigid hag!") A year ago it would have been unthinkable and I definitely would have berated myself for appropriation.

Until I found out by accident that asexuality is now included on sites like GLAAD and the Trevor Project, etc. It felt like a completely different set of warm hands beckoning me in out of the rain. I kind of NEED queer right now. No, I dont plan on taking resources from any advocacy group that's trying to shelter homeless queer teens or anything like that. But I'm soothed by the IDEA of having a safe place, even if feeling safe and understood is not my everyday experience.

[Guest]

Asexuality experiences just as much discrimination. Why the hell would they not be included?

[Schñjört]

5 hours ago, KrysLost said:

Asexuality experiences just as much discrimination. Why the hell would they not be included?

I agree. I understand why some would see ace/aro as not LGBTQ+, but we're invalidated all the time and that's why I think we should be there. 

[DogObsessedLi]

I agree that it's a queer/quasi sexual orientation minority and as such is LGBTQIA.

I'm also going to point out that trans people had a hard time being accepted in the then LGB community. It's all sexual and gender minorities. I agree though that it could be argued that there is a need for a new word to sum up such minorities that is more encompassing of all sexual orientation and gender minorities better than LGBTQ.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

I agree that it's a queer/quasi sexual orientation minority and as such is LGBTQIA.

I'm also going to point out that trans people had a hard time being accepted in the then LGB community. It's all sexual and gender minorities. I agree though that it could be argued that there is a need for a new word to sum up such minorities that is more encompassing of all sexual orientation and gender minorities better than LGBTQ.

We'll call ourselves the Wombats and start a pineapple cult. if you ask me, that's the best for the inclusion of everyone. 

[Anthracite_Impreza]

2 hours ago, DogObsessedLianne said:

I agree though that it could be argued that there is a need for a new word to sum up such minorities that is more encompassing of all sexual orientation and gender minorities better than LGBTQ.

GSRM (gender, sexual and romantic minorities) already exists. Still doubt they'd accept us objectums, but fuck it I'm barging my way in anyway.

[SithLord]

1 hour ago, Anthracite_Impreza said:

GSRM (gender, sexual and romantic minorities) already exists. Still doubt they'd accept us objectums, but fuck it I'm barging my way in anyway.

Pretty sure as long as it's not people abusing minors or animals, most sexualities would be welcome into such an all-emcompassing label. It's not like anyone's going to claim you're abusing a car.

 

Even I just disagree with the philisophical thing around if non-living beings are sentient or have souls/beings, and I'm not about to say you're wrong for being attracted to what you're attracted to. Just that I don't really get it. But you do you. 

[Janus the Fox]

As somepne that's involved in a same-sex relationship and have a non-binar gender, I belong in the LGBT, even if the AroAceAgen identity goes not.

[Guest]

Well I imagine they're definitely not going to include the asexuals in the LGB.